Studia Archaeologica 28 2014

ZIRIDAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 28 2014

MUSEUM ARAD

ZIRIDAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA

28 2014

Editura MEGA Cluj-Napoca 2014 MUSEUM ARAD

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-chief: Peter Hügel. Editorial Assistants: Florin Mărginean, Victor Sava.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD M. Cârciumaru (Târgoviște, Romania), S. Cociș (Cluj-Napoca, Romania), F. Gogâltan (Cluj-Napoca, Romania), S. A. Luca (Sibiu, Romania), V. Kulcsár (Szeged, Hungary), T. Miklós (Budapest, Hungary), J. O'Shea (Michigan, USA), K. Z. Pinter (Sibiu, Romania), I. Stanciu (Cluj-Napoca, Romania), I. Szatmári (Békéscsaba, Hungary).

In Romania, the periodical can be obtained through subscription or exchange, sent as post shipment, from Museum Arad, Arad, Piata G. Enescu 1, 310131, Romania. Tel. 0040–257–281847.

ZIRIDAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA

Any correspondence will be sent to the editor: Museum Arad Piata George Enescu 1, 310131 Arad, RO e-mail: [email protected]

Te content of the papers totally involve the responsibility of the authors.

Layout: Francisc Baja, Florin Mărginean, Victor Sava

ISSN-L 1224–7316

EDITURA MEGA | www.edituramega.ro e-mail: [email protected] Contents

Ion Pâslaru, Vitaly Pozhidaev Percentages in the Study of neolithic Pottery 7

Székely Zsolt Contributions to the history of archaeological research in Macea, the settlement in Topila (Arad County) 21

Călin Ghemis, Tudor Rus, Robert Kovacs Between sacred and profane – a discovery belonging to the Coţofeni Culture inside “Stanu Cerbului” cave (Bihor County) 31

Victor Sava, Luminiţa Andreica, Xenia Pop, Florin Gogâltan Out of ordinary or common burial practice? A Funerary Discovery from the Baden Settlement at Sântana “Cetatea Veche” 39

Luminiţa Andreica Musculoskeletal Markers as Evidence of Physical Activity and Social Diferentiation in the Lower Mureş Valley during the Late Bronze Age 77

Alexandru Berzovan Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County (2nd century BC – 1st century A.D.) 87

Ştefana Cristea “I am Horus the Savior”. Representations of Horus-Harpokrates in Roman Dacia 115

Csaba Szabó Notes on the Mithraic small fnds from Sarmizegetusa 135

Csaba Szabó, George Valentin Bounegru, Victor Sava Mithras rediscovered. Notes on CIMRM 1938 149

Norbert Kapcsos Te Sarmatian Graves of the 4R Archaeological Site Dated to the Tird-Fourth century A.D. Additional Data on the Sarmatian Burial Rite in the Lower Mureş Region 157

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan On the Two-Room Dwelling from Precinct IV of the Early Medieval Fortifcation in Dăbâca (Cluj County) and the Chronology of the First Stage of Fortifcation 173

Aurel Dragotă Eggs as Oferings in Tenth-Eleventh Century Necropolises 183

Imre Szatmári, György Kerekes Medieval Villages in the Fields Surrounding Mezőhegyes 193

Erwin Gáll Te Signifcance of the Sites “Aşezare” and “Necropolă” on “Dealul Viilor” in the Development of Habitat in the Micro-area of Sighişoara during the Middle Ages (Twelfth-Tirteenth Century). Human Landscape of the Sighisoara Region from the 12th–13th Centuries 209 Anca Nițoi, Claudia Urduzia Elements of Fortifcation of the Medieval and Early Modern City of Sibiu. Te Tower Gate and the Gate’s Bastion. Historical and Archaeological Considerations 243

Zsuzsanna Kopeczny, Florin Mărginean Medieval Stove Tiles in the Collection of the Museum of Banat Discovered in the Fortifcation of Şoimoş (Arad County) 259

Abbreviations 273 Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County (2nd century BC – 1st century A.D.)*

Alexandru Berzovan

Abstract: Regarding the archaeology of Arad County, the 1965–1985 period was characterized by a special energy invested in the archaeological research of the traces of Dacian civilization traces. Tese researches have led to the discovery of a signifcant quantity of archaeological materials that have enriched the museum collections of Arad, Oradea, and Cluj-Napoca. For various reasons, the majority of these discoveries have remained, until today, unstudied. Te present article aims at providing a general picture of Dacian habitation on the site in Vărădia de Mureş “Cetate;” the discoveries will be exhaustively presented in a future monograph work. From the perspective of the chronology of the discoveries, the oldest traces of habitation on the “Cetate” Plateau can be dated to the First Iron Age. Habitation traces from the Second Iron Age, namely during the period of the Dacian Kingdom, are much more signifcant. It seems that the plateau was fortifed during this period with a defensive ditch. From a stratigraphic perspective, the existence of two distinct levels of habitation has been observed (dated to the 2nd – 1st century B.C. and to the 1st century B.C.–1st century A.D.); furthermore, Dacian habitation was not limited to the plateau but extended beyond it, westwards, under the center of the present-day settlement. Te archaeological material mainly consists of pottery; objects made of metal are rarities. Te fortifcation in Săvârşin “Dealul Cetăţuia” is located seven kilometers east of the one in Vărădia. Te two fortifcations, partially contemporaneous, controlled this sector of River Mureş and the entrance way to the Transylvanian nucleus of the Dacian Kingdom. Te publication of the monographs of the two sites will certainly provide more numerous possibilities of analysis of these fortifed settlements, located so close to each other, that certainly shared a common historical destiny.

Keywords: fortifcation, Dacian pottery, period of the Dacian Kingdom, Lower Mureş, Vărădia de Mureş.

I. Introduction Regarding the archaeology of Arad County, the 1965–1985 period was characterized by a special energy invested in the archaeological research of the traces of Dacian civilization`s traces1. Tus, during this interval, excavation campaigns and test trenches were performed in sites such as those in Pecica “Şanţul Mare”2, Săvârşin “Dealul Cetăţii”3, Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”4, Cladova “Dealul Cetăţii”5, Berindia “Dealul Şindrioara”6, Clit “Gureţul Negrilor”7, Groşeni “Jidovină”8 and others. Tese researches – no matter if consisting of simple test trenches (Clit, Groşeni), during several short campaigns (Berindia, Pecica, Vărădia de Mureş) or, on the contrary, of ample researches that continued, with short interruptions, until the middle of the 2000s (Cladova, Săvârşin) – have led to the discovery of signifcant quantities of archaeological materials that have enriched the collections of museums in Arad, Oradea, and Cluj-Napoca. For various reasons, most of these discoveries, with the exception of those in Pecica9, have remained, until today, unpublished.

* English translation: Ana M. Gruia. 1 Berzovan 2013, 75–76. 2 Crişan 1978. 3 Barbu, Hurezan 1982. 4 Barbu, Zdroba 1977. 5 Boroneanţ 1978. 6 Dumitraşcu, Ordentlich 1973. 7 Dumitraşcu 1970. 8 RAJ Arad 1999, 73. 9 Crişan 1978.

ZIRIDAVA, STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA, 28, p. 87–114 88 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

From my perspective, I have decided to research as many of these materials as possible. Some might argue that publishing items discovered during old excavations, most lacking all context (in the lucky cases, only the name of the surface of discovery and the depth are mentioned), does not provide enough data for the construction of a coherent interpretative discourse based on them. I nevertheless believe that these lots, just like all the others, deserve and must be published as such; the items are mainly valuable in themselves. Even from the analysis of lots lacking a clear context one can extract very precious information on a large number of aspects, such as the general chronology of a habitation, pottery-making technologies, and the issue of circulation of ceramic forms among diferent cultural areas, to mention just a few examples. Te frst and unique study on the Dacian discoveries in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetăţii” was published almost four decades ago by the authors of the excavation10, but it mostly had an introduc- tory character11. Te present study12 aims at providing a general overview of Dacian habitation on this site, while the discoveries will be subsequently presented, in their entirety, in a future monograph work13. At the same time, I will bring certain more than necessary clarifcations on the issue of the so-called hoard of silver items that the specialized literature states to have been discovered there during the second half of the nineteenth century.

II. Te archaeological site in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate” From a geographical perspective, the site is located in the south-eastern area of Zărand Mountains, more precisely in the point where they meet Culoarul Mureşului (Vărădia Depression), in the western area of pre-Roman Dacia (Fig. 1). Te spot is located on a hill with steep slopes, Dealul Cetăţii (180 m in altitude), that dominates with its extra ca. 40 m the lower surrounding areas, providing at the same time very good visibility over a wide sector of the Mureş Valley. Te natural conditions there are favorable to human habitation. In this sector of CuloarulMureşului, the ample depression of Vărădia could have provided very good conditions to agricultural endeavors. Even the mild and low ridges of Zarand allow for the cultivation, on natural or artifcial terraces, of some, more resistant species of wheat. River Mureş, with its ample meadow and pertaining hooks, provided sufcient access to fsh, mollusk, and game. Te resources of the underground are equally rich and varied. Tus, in the area of the settlements of Juliţa, Baia, Săvârşin, Toc, Cuiaş one fnds iron ores14. Especially in the area of Baia, iron minerals are close to the surface and could be easily exploited, even with more primitive means. Nonferrous minerals are also present: thus, lead is found in Săvârşin and copper in Roşia Nouă, Vărădia de Mureş, and Bârzava15. Tings that could not be obtained locally were procured through commerce with other communities – the Mureș valley was, back then, an important commercial route that connected the Transylvanian area and the Pannonian Plain. Mountain trails, used almost until the present day, ensured easy access over the ridge of Zarand between the Mureş Valley and Crişul Alb Valley. Te oldest mention of the “Cetate” Hill as a point of archaeological interest can be found in the repertory compiled by Márton Roska16, where the site is mentioned as a possible spot of interest. Subsequently, during works for the construction of the national Arad – Deva road in 1930–1940, a part of DealulCetate was afected17. Later on, probably during the 1960s, several local inhabitants, D.

10 Barbu, Zdroba 1977. 11 A number of Dacian pottery materials discovered there were previously presented in the doctoral dissertation of CorinaToma, researcher from Oradea, focusing on western and north-western Dacia between the second century B.C. and the frst century A.D. (Toma 2007). 12 I thank Prof. Univ. Dr. Nicolae Ursulescu, my doctoral supervisor, for taking the time to read this material and for providing extremely useful advice and suggestions. 13 I thank the CMA team (Prof. Dr. Peter Hügel, George Pascu Hurezan, Dr. Florin Mărginean, and Dr. Victor Sava) for allowing me to research and publish the Dacian materials discovered on this spot. Te future monograph, that will extensively discuss both the discoveries from the Dacian period and those from the Middle Ages, will be written together with Dr. Florin Mărginean. 14 Giuşcă, Bleahu, 1966. 15 Giuşcă, Bleahu, 1966. 16 Roska 1942, 293/85. 17 Barbu, Zdroba 1977, 22; Barbu 1996, 48. Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 89

Mariş, S. Deac, A. Baciu, and I. Roşu rescued from the hill and the surrounding areas several pottery fragments that raised the interest of archaeologists MirceaBarbu and MirceaZdroba from the Museum in Arad.

Fig. 1. Map of ancient Dacia with the location of the site in Vărădia de Mureş.

Tus, the frst archaeological excavations started in 1971 and continued during 1972, 1973, and 1974. Both the promontory and the area in its close proximity, westwards, were envisaged. From the perspective of the chronology of the discoveries, the oldest traces of habitation on the “Cetate” Plateau can be dated to the First Iron Age. Tere are nevertheless few traces from this period, less than a dozen pottery fragments, while on the preserved excavation plans I was unable to fnd, as yet, any marking or mentioning of a habitation layer that could be dated during this period. From a cultural perspective, the few materials that I have analyzed can be attributed largely to the Gava and Basarabi Cultures. Habitation traces from the Second Iron Age, namely from the period of the Dacian Kingdom, are much more signifcant. It seems that the plateau was fortifed during this period through a massive defense ditch that probably had an adjacent rampart. From a stratigraphic perspective, the existence of two distinct habitation layers has been observed; furthermore, Dacian habitation was not limited to the plateau but extended beyond it, westwards, under the center of the present-day settlement (Fig. 2). Scattered pottery fragments indicate that the area was also inhabited throughout the Roman period (second-third centuries A.D.), though no clear layer attributed to this period has been mentioned in existing documentation. One must state that, at this point, it is uncertain if the materials under discussion were found on the plateau or elsewhere. During the Middle Ages, the promontory was again occupied and a church with stone walls was built there. Subsequently, once the Ottoman Empire conquered the Hungarian Kingdom and the Banat, a fortifed place (“palank”) was built there, meant both to supervise the Mureş Valley in this sector and to protect the otherwise rather volatile border area between the Vilayet of Timişoara and the Principality of Transylvania. Te conclusion of the Austrian-Turkish wars put an end to habitation in this spot, leaving just a place name to remind us of the past existence of a fortifcation there. 90 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

Fig. 2. Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, orthophoto plan.

III. T e hoard with silver item(s): the result of historiographical confusions T e so-called hoard – or isolated discovery, consisting of one or, according to other authors, several silver knot brooches, holds a special place among the issues concerning the Dacian vestiges in Vărădia de Mureş. In Romanian-language historiography, the f rst mention of it can be found in a work signed by the regretted researcher Liviu Mărghitan dedicated to Dacian discoveries in the area of the Middle Mureş18, where the author mentions the “silver brooches typical to the Dacians” that were presumably found there. T e piece of information was taken up again in 1971 in an article signed by the same author together with Sever Dumitraşcu, where they state that “silver knot brooches were found here”19. From the last work that L. Mărghitan dedicated to the issue of silver hoards in pre-Roman Dacia one f nds out about a single knot brooch that was presumably discovered on the spot during the sixth or seventh decade of the nineteenth century20. Data in L. Mărghitan’s works were taken over at face value by the authors of the excavations, M. Barbu and M. Zdroba21, and in the Archaeological Repertory of the County of Arad22. In all these cases the source of information is one study-repertory written by Téglás Gábor23; in the subchapter dedicated to the discoveries in the Mureş Valley between Zam and Alba Iulia, at no. 36, one f nds a lacunal mention of a single silver knot brooch that the author saw in the Imperial Collection of Antiquities (Vienna) and that was presumably discovered in Váradja24, Lower Alba County (present- day village of Oarda, city of Alba Iulia, Alba County)25.

18 Mărghitan 1970, 17. 19 Dumitraşcu, Mărghitan 1971, 52. 20 Mărghitan 2008, 166. T e author also states that the information according to which one silver brooch was found during the archaeological excavations of 1971–1974 is obviously erroneous. 21 Barbu, Zdroba 1977, 21; Barbu 1996, 48. 22 RAJ Arad 1999, 129. 23 In almost all of the cases quoted (and read) wrongly (see infra). 24 Téglás 1887, 65. 25 Téglás’ story clearly indicates another settlement called Vărădia, not Vărădia de Mureş. T ough called Váradja in some medieval documents (Márki 1892, 185), during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries all of the old maps and name registries that I checked contain the Hungarian name of Tothvárad and the German name of Waradia and it is less probable that the item was recorded from a settlement under a name that cease to be used for more than four centuries. On the contrary, the settlement of Oarda was created through the junction of two other settlements, Oarda de Jos Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 91

Unfortunately, the confusions on this discovery continue also in Daniel Spânu’s last – and otherwise successful – work dedicated to Dacian silverworks. Tus, from the entry dedicated to the so-called discoveries from Vărădia de Mureş one learns that four brooches were presumably discovered there and then “deposited at the MNIT in Cluj, where they are mentioned in 1887”26. Te only bibliographic sources are two of L. Mărghitan and S. Dumitraşcu’s studies discussed above27, as well as Téglás G.’s work, that the author, nevertheless, almost certainly did not consult28. One is left wondering what was the real source of the statements related to the four brooches and their presence in the collection of the MNIT Cluj in 1887, since none of the mentioned sources reminded of such facts and there is nothing to suggest that the author had access to unpublished documents29. Taking into consideration all these observations, one can conclude that no Dacian silver brooch was found so far in Vărădia de Mureş. In the same category of confusions I must mention a series of monetary discoveries that are still shrouded in numerous uncertainties as to their real place of discovery – Vărădia de Caraş or Vărădia de Mureş. Tus, the Archaeological Repertory of Arad County mentions republican and imperial Roman denarii (Nero, Titus, Vespasian), one aureus issued by Nero, and a bronze coin issued by Octavian as having found in Vărădia de Mureș30. But, as Florin Medeleţ has indicated31, the data from I. Glodariu’s volume on the commercial relations of pre-Roman Dacia32 that mentions “Vărădia” as place of discovery, accompanied by a question mark, it is not correct. Te source employed (though incompletely quoted) is Bucur Mitrea’s 1945 study that makes this clear – the settlement in question was Vărădia in Caraş-Severin County33. Adding all these elements up, one can therefore conclude that, until now, there is no data attesting the discovery of any sort of ancient coinsin Vărădia de Mureş.

IV. Dacian habitation IV.1. Character of the habitation Tough insufcient to allow for the creation of a complex and coherent picture, the results of the four excavation campaigns support certain preliminary observations on the character and length of Dacian habitation on this site. One can thus observe that, from the perspective of spatial organi- zation, it was a fortifed settlement, plus the nearby civilian settlement the extent of which remains unknown. Furthermore, Dacian traces have been found just several kilometers away, to the north- west, in Juliţa34. Te relatively small promontory (130 × 60 m) was separated by the rest of the hill through a ditch, measuring ca. two meters in depth and ca. six meters in width (see Fig. 3). It was flled up, probably during the Middle Ages, and this makes it hardly visible today. Tough, as far as I am aware of, the excavation did not manage to fnd it, one should suspect the existence of a rampart with palisade or at least of a wooden fence that could provide the defenders with some minimal protection against projectiles launched by possible attackers.

(Alsóváradja= Alsómarosváradja) and Oarda de Sus (Felsőváradja=Felsőmarosváradja); furthermore, the latter feature on the frst Josephine map (see Sectio186) just as Váradja. It is thus almost certain that the item was discovered in the center of this later settlement, as Téglás stated, probably sometime during the second half of the nineteenth century. Te editors of the archaeological repertory of the county of Alba placed there the discovery of “silver brooches” (the type or dating is not mentioned), making reference to the same work of Téglás (RAJ Alba 1995, 132). Te authors suggest that the item were preserved in the collection of the Museum in Alba Iulia (less likely). 26 Spânu 2012, 249. 27 Mărghitan 1970; Dumitraşcu, Mărghitan 1971. 28 Proof, among other things, of the fact that it is quoted with the error referring to pages (56–57; correctly, page 65) as in L. Mărghitan’s work published in 1970. 29 Te author suggests, as a hypothesis, the identifcation of the so-called four brooches from Vărădia with four items from the MNIT, but as the author itself states, their place of discovery is unknown (Spânu 2012, 249, 251). 30 RAJ Arad 1999, 129. 31 Medeleţ 1994, 291. Discussing the monetary discoveries attributed to Vărădia de Caraş, Fl. Medeleţ mentioned a coin issued in Olbia, that C. Preda frst wrote about on the basis of a piece of information received from O. Iliescu (Preda 1980, 39) as originating in “Vărădia”. Te archaeologist from Timişoara believed that in this case, the settlement was rather Vărădia de Mureş. 32 Glodariu 1974, 296/342. 33 Mitrea 1945, 104/23. 34 Unpublished materials (the CMA collection). 92 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

Fig. 3. Te defense ditch (image on the basis of ground plans preserved in the CMA archives).

According to the authors of the excavation, two houses were uncovered inside the fortifed area, while just one such dwelling was found in the “civilian” settlement. It is difcult to express considerations on the way they were built, but according to some preserved fragments, it seems that here, like in numerous other places in Ancient Dacia35, the walls were constructed from adobe (a network of twigs covered in clay). One illustrated fragment (Pl. 10/2), carefully rendered on one side, seems to have been plastered on the outside.

IV.2. Materials of local tradition Very large quantities of pottery have been found. A signifcant number of fragments were once part of jar-vessels, modeled exclusively by hand. From the perspective of their morphology, at frst glance one notes that the predominant forms are vessels with the median diameter equal or slightly larger than the diameter of the mouth, with rims most often fared, having rounded ends. Te quality of the fabric varies rather much, in quantity and nature of the inclusions, as well as in the treatment of the outer surface: there are items with accented coarseness36 (e.g. no. 11), but also smoothed items in which liquids were probably stored or boiled (no. 10). Te ornaments placed on the body of these vessels are varied, including both decorative elements in relief (knobs, girdles, “pills”) and incised elements (simple lines, waves, striations etc.) As it is well known, such types of vessels were used during household activities, mostly in the preparation of food, judging after the traces of secondary fring and smoke, but also in the storage of those categories of foodstufs that, due to the quantity in which they were produced or due to their quality, could not be properly stored in large vessels37. Te common character of this category of vessels, in all Dacian settlements, renders the presentation of analogies useless. Tere are also rather numerous fruit-bowls preserved. Tey have been modeled both by hand and on the potters’ wheel. From a morphological perspective, one notes the predominance of those with shallower cups, more or less profled shoulder, and wide rim, but there are also items with deep cup, no shoulder, and narrow rim. A very special case consists of a fragment that seems to have belonged to a curiously shaped fruit bowl (rectangular or star-shaped cup, according to the preserved angle), with a projection on the rim (Pl. 7/1); I am yet unaware of similar items in the inner Carpathian area – a somehow similar item was found in Pietroasele “Gruiul Dării”38. Te fruit bowls discovered in Vărădia de Mureş generally display good quality fabric; the clay employed was generally pure – the inclusions are present in lower quantity, and in some cases they are even absent. Te treatment of the surfaces consisted in numerous cases in a layer of slip, usually dark brown or blackish, that was subsequently polished; other times, the surface of the vessel itself

35 See Glodariu 1983, 9–11; Antonescu 1984, 16 sq. 36 Some authors explain the coarse character through the perspective of their functionality; see the very interesting discussion of the point in Matei 2011, 48 sqq. 37 Similar opinions in Crişan 1969, 162; Costea 2006, 226. 38 Te curious shape of the item has caused certain problems. Te determination was made on the basis of information kindly provided by Dr. Sebastian Matei (County Museum Buzău) and Dr. Magdalena Ştefan (the Institute of Archaeology in Cluj-Napoca), to whom I hereby express my gratitude. Compare with Matei 2011, 60 and fg. 39, 6.M.35. Similar projections on the rim of fruit-bowls I had seen in the Dacian materials from Iedera– “DealulCetățuia” (Târgoviște History Museum). Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 93 was polished. Tis is typical for the fnds dated in the centuries 2nd – 1st BC. It is interesting to note that on the grey items made on the potters’ wheel, more specifc to 1st century BC – 1st century AD timeframe, polishing and polished decoration are less often encountered. Te polish was obtained with tools such as bone spatulas, rags, rounded stones, or, in some cases, even pieces of graphite – for example, the foot of one fruit-bowl seems to have been polished thus, and it is possible that the slip contained the same matter (see Pl. 7/7)39 Te existence of graphite polishers has been discussed in the specialized literature40 and a few such fnds have been mentioned from Biharea, Sucidava / Celei, and Sighişoara “Wietenberg”41. To the already known examples I can add the discoveries in Vărădia de Mureş: one fragment of pure graphite (Pl. 8/7) and several pottery fragments with a very high content of graphite that probably belong to small vessels and show obvious traces of abrasion, proof of having likely been used to this end (Pl. 8/6). As for the role of the fruit-bowls, I believe that it was ceremonial, used during banquets or various other occasions42, but anyway with functions deeply connected to the traditional social structures of pre-Roman Dacia43. Vessels for food consumption per se, i.e. tureens and bowls, were also found in signifcant numbers. Some of them betray older local pottery traditions (no. 21), other show possible Celtic infuences (no. 26), possibly even Roman ones (no. 23). Te forms vary greatly, on a case-to-case basis, just like the quality and treatment of the fabric. Vessels for the consumption of liquids, cups and jugs, are somewhat more poorly represented among the discoveries made until now. One torsaded handle (no. 19 and Pl. 3/3), typical to the so-called “luxury” wares, draws one’s attention. Te Dacian cups (Ro: “căţui”), not very numerous, are morphologically unitary, generally simple and lacking all ornament; one item stands out – an entirely preserved cup, of the handless category (no. 47 and Pl. 6/2). As for the storage vessels, wheel-thrown pythoi hold a special place through the quantity and quality of the discoveries. From a morphological perspective, the stepped rims, usually two or three, are typical to this category of vessels from Vărădia44. Both oxidizing and reducing fred items are known in this group; as general outlook the surfaces are well smoothed, with wooden spatulas, the fabric is generally of good quality, with inclusions of mica, sometimes in signifcant quantity. Te decoration consists of artistic elements, in rare cases more simple ones such as furrows or steps, pulled from the fabric while the vessel was turning (no. 29; 30); incised ornaments consisted of simple and wavy lines. In some cases, the fute between the two “steps” of the rim was incised with a wavy line (no. 27).As for the two items that belong to dolia-type vessels (no. 31, 33), it is not clear if they were found in the Roman or pre-Roman period habitations, as their chronology covers both intervals45. Tere are also rarer forms, such as the vessel with perforations, tronconic in shape, interpreted either as a “smoker” or a strainer46; the rather large orifce on the bottom of it nevertheless supports the frst interpretation. Tere are numerous objects that speak of the various activities of the inhabitants of the fortifcation on “Cetate” Hill. Tere are spindle weights47, attesting the domestic craft of wool spinning

39 Te case presented here is not singular; a fruit-bowl rim polished with graphite was discovered in Lancrăm- “Glod” (Popa, Simina 2004, 73). 40 Popa, Rustoiu, 257–258; Popa, Simina 2004, 73–74. 41 Popa, Rustoiu, 257–258. 42 See also I. Andriţoiu and A. Rustoiu’s observations (1997, 86–87). 43 Tis could explain the sudden and defnitive disappearance, at the time of the Roman conquest, of this type of vessel from the repertory of forms employed by the Dacians in the area of Transylvania and Walachia (Glodariu 1981a, 75; Bichir 1984, 23) and its preservation in the area of Moldavia and of the Lipiţa Culture, thus precisely in the areas less afected by the consequences of the confict, where traditional society was able to continue, to a certain extent, its development (see also the suggestions provided by Matei 2011, 58). 44 Tis type of vessel is characteristic to the period of the Dacian kingdom (Glodariu 1995, 49); it was also present, in signifcant numbers, in the Lower Mureş Valley: Pecica (Crişan 1978, 132, 191–192), Păuliş- DealulBătrân (Pădurean 1990, pl. 31/6–7), possibly Cladova (Boroneanţ 1978, 142), Zăbrani (previously unpublished, the CMA collection), Săvârşin (Barbu, Hurezan 1982, 55). 45 See the discussion and the bibliographic indications in Glodariu 1995, 49. 46 Glodariu, Moga 1989, 68–69. 47 Even if today, in the rural areas of Romania and the Balkans this type of objects is no longer used in traditional weaving for hundreds of years, items morphologically identical to the objects archaeologically found on the site under discussion continue to be used as such until the present day in various areas of the Middle East and in Maghreb (Watson 1979, 174). 94 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

(Pl. 10/4, 5, 6); in case of need, these items could be used as loom weights as well. Te function of the pyramidal, larger items (Pl. 10/11) is more difcult to establish; perforated adobe items (Pl. 10/3) or small stones with perforations (Pl. 10/1, 9) could have been used as fshing weights. It is interesting to note among the discoveries the presence of what seems to be a stone axe fragment, probably Neolithic (Pl. 10/10); as I am unaware of Neolithic traces on “Cetate” Hill, it seems more likely that in ancient times some inhabitant of the settlement found the item elsewhere and later kept it as a curiosity. Tere are also “game pieces”48, made of the walls or bottoms of vessels, some perforated (Pl. 10/7). From the rather poor osteologic material, I have illustrated one shell (Pl. 10/12). Te almost complete absence of metal objects is strange49; the authors of the excavation mention two fragments of bent knives and two iron fshing hooks, but I was yet unable to identify them in the CMA collections.

IV.3. Imitations and imports Te location of this community near one of the large commercial routes of Dacia is partially refected in the archaeological discoveries. Its relations to other “barbarian” peoples, such as the Celts and the Bastarni, played an important role during the second-frst centuries B.C. One thus encounters fragments of pseudokantharos-type vessels50, wheel-thrown, made of black, polished fabric. Unfortunately, none of the items has been preserved entirely. Due to their size, slim form, and proportion between the diameter of the mouth and the median diameter, the fragments illustrated here (no. 18, see also pl. 8/2, 5), could be included in type 3 according to the typology of A. Rustoiu and M. Egri, thus having analogies in the Celtic environment in Pannonia and the neighboring areas51. It is difcult to say if the items are imports or creations of traveling Celtic masters; it is nevertheless certain that the presence of these vessels attests to connections with the neighboring Celtic environment, probably during the second half of the second century B.C. Te fragments from vessels with graphite in their fabric and the graphite fragment discussed above must be analyzed from the same perspective, i.e. that of the relations with the Celtic tribes. Among the pottery fragments, one attracts attention: it certainly belonged to a tureen, with strongly fared lip and a small, X-shaped handle (no. 17 and Pl. 3/1). Tese details, just like its form and presence in a Dacian settlement, seem to make reference, at frst glance, to the environment of the Poieneşti Lukaşevka Culture52. Te presence of such an item would not be surprising – items originating as well in the far area of northern Moldavia have been discovered before on the Lower Mureş and in Pecica “Şanţul Mare”53. Nevertheless, elements such as the absence of faceting on the inside of the rim and the structure of the fabric (see no. 17), less typical to “Bastarnae” pottery, ask for caution54. Local imitations of situla-type vessels are present in relatively large numbers. One must state that none of the analyzed fragments shows graphite in the fabric. Tey have been modeled either on the potters’ wheel (Pl. 8/1) or by hand (no. 20). Tis type of vessels is encountered in numerous Dacian settlements, throughout the period between the frst century B.C. and the frst century A.D. Tere is only one item that is an imitation of a Hellenistic vessel, namely of a krater (Fig. 4). Such vessels are also distributed rather widely, both geographically and chronologically55, but the most numerous seem to belong to the second-frst centuries B.C.56 A bead made of colored glass (not illustrated), completes the otherwise rather restricted series of imports.

48 On the possible functions of these items, see Pop 1995–1996. 49 Te presence of sharpening stones among the discoveries (Pl. 10/8), some with traces of intense usage, suggests that such items must have nevertheless existed. 50 See Rustoiu, Egri 2011, 17. 51 Rustoiu, Egri 2011, 20, fg. 5. 52 Babeş1993, Taf. 38, 588/b, etc. 53 Crişan 1978, 140, Pl. 33/2. 54 Te vessel, on the fnding context of which no data is available, might also be connected to a later habitation horizon, subsequent to the period of the Dacian Kingdom; handles of this type are generally typical to the Germanic environment from the Second Iron Age (Vulpe 1953, 429, n. 47). 55 Popa, Simina 2004, 62. 56 Matei 2011, 39. Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 95

IV.4. Chronology Te absence of coins, jewelry items, dress accessories, and imports hinders signifcantly the identifcation of precise chronological limits, while the collection of the material, which was not done according to complexes, makes an already complicated situation even more complicated57. Pre-Roman Dacian habitation on “Cetate” Hill has two distinct layers. According to the analyzed materials, the earliest of them could be attributed to the general interval of the second-frst centuries B.C. Tere are a few indications supporting this dating. Tus, the type of tureen no. 21 (see also Pl. 3/5) in the appended catalogue displays morphological traits that support its attribution to an early horizon, having good analogies in Berea (item found in the third-second century B.C. layer)58, Floreşti “Şapca Verde” (second century B.C.)59, and Panic (the second half of the second century B.C.)60; anyway, it is considered that the tureen form with straight rim as compared to the central axis of the vessel (like the item under discussion) is rather typical to the second century B.C.61 Te vessels with strongly thickened rim, reminding of certain Celtic forms (no. 22), suggest, in their turn, the same early horizon: one analogy can be identifed in Zalău “Dealul Lupului” (third-second centuries B.C.), in the local environment62. Vessel bottoms “with umbo,” present in Vărădia (see also no. 24 and Pl. 3/8), have analogies on numerous sites, such as those in Ciolăneştii din Deal63 or Floreşti “Şapca Verde”64, mainly dated to the second century B.C. and the beginning of the subsequent century. Adding up all these facts, one can conclude that Dacian habitation here probably started no earlier than in the second half of the second century B.C. Nevertheless, the most consistent lot of materials displays an aspect as specifc as possible to Dacian pottery from the frst century B.C. – frst century A.D., with the characteristic forms; I therefore it could be possible that just like at Săvârșin, the upper Dacian layerdates to this interval. If the beginning of habitation could be established, even in general terms, the dating of its end is somewhat more complicated; the main question that raises if whether this fortifcation was still in use during the great Dacian-Roman confrontations. M. Barbu and M. Zdroba, in their article mentioned above, stated that the settlement ended destroyed in a violent fre in the beginning of the second century A.D., along with the fortifcation in Pecica“Şanţul Mare”65, in the context of the Dacian-Roman wars. More recently though, starting from the very few materials illustrated by the two archaeologists from Arad (20 vessels and fragments all together), H. Pop restricted the chronology to just until the beginning of the frst century A.D66. Despite the fact that I have examined the entire material, I choose to be more cautious towards the two opinions mentioned above, so diferent from each other (and not very well supported); in the subsequent lines I will limit myself to making a few observations on the material that might have chronological relevance. Te pythoi fragments, such as the one displaying a wavy line on the rim, were considered specifc to the frst century A.D., more precisely to the second half of it67, but subsequent researches have noted their presence also in earlier horizons, dated to the frst century B.C., on spots such as those in Sighişoara “Wietenberg”68, Lancrăm “Glod”69, and Covasna “Cetatea

57 Te absence of an adequate and up to date catalogue of the chronology of pottery according to diferent areas and micro- regions, starting from discoveries made in clearly dated contexts, is strongly felt in the historiography of the Dacian period, especially for the inner Carpathian area; the employed catalogues and studies (Crişan 1966; Glodariu 1981a; Glodariu 1981b), published more than 50 and, respectively, 30 years ago, require numerous completions. Tere are already two such approaches for the area of Walachia (Trohani 1999; Matei 2011). 58 Pupeză 2012, 31, Pl. 7/8. 59 Pupeză 2012, 51, Pl. 22/12. 60 Pupeză 2012, 80, Pl. 46/3. 61 Pupeză 2012, 299. 62 Pupeză 2012, 114, Pl. 70/5. 63 Pupeză 2012, 135, Pl. 84/2, 4. 64 Pupeză 2012, 51, Pl. 22/9. 65 Barbu, Zdroba 1977, 25. 66 Pop 2006, 44. 67 Glodariu 1981b, 157. 68 Andriţoiu, Rustoiu 1997, 84–85. 69 Popa, Simina 2004, 76. 96 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

Zânelor”70, and therefore can no longer be used as “markers” in the documentation of a frst century A.D. habitation. Te two dolia fragments, of certain Roman infuence, might indicate with more preci- sion a late horizon, but, as I stated previously, their attribution to the pre-Roman Dacian habitation is uncertain. Fruit-bowls with late morphological characteristics71, so frequently encountered on sites such as the one in Pecica “Şanţul Mare”, are slightly rarer here, a fact that might (or might not) constitute in itself an indicator of an earlier end72. On the other hand, nevertheless, I. Glodariu dated the analogies for the handless Dacian cups from the sites in Slimnic and Arpaşu de Jos only in the second half of the frst century A.D.73, but development exceptions from the modern patterns impose caution. Bowls, such as the one illustrated here at no. 23 (Pl. 3/7), are more frequent in north-eastern Walachia during the frst century A.D., especially in the second half of the century74. Unfortunately, a possible correlation with the situation in the immediate vicinity, on the better researched site in Săvârşin “Cetăţuia” is not possible due to the (illegal) works for the construction of a mobile phone tower in 2004 that has afected the entire upper plateau of the hill, disturbing the habitation layer; the excavation has only identifed the sunken complexes; thus, the end of Dacian habitation in Săvârşin cannot be documented precisely either75. In the light of the above said, It could be possible that the habitation on “Cetate” Hill might have continued throughout the entire duration of the frst century A.D., until the Dacian-Roman wars, and even for a while afterwards, naturally under diferent auspices. But it cannot be excluded a slightly earlier ending, maybe due to a tribal confict or due to other causes. Anyway, it is to be desired that future excavations should complete these observations with more facts.

V. Final considerations On “Dealul Cetate” there was certainly a fortifed settlement, no doubt of some importance, but, at frst glance, lacking the ambitions that would characterize a regional power center as the extreme rarity of the metal items and the small number of imports suggests. Te existence of the fortifed hill and of a civilian settlement nearby might represent a topographic expression of certain social realities. According to some traces, it is possible that other, smaller settlements existed in the area, westwards, such as the one in Juliţa, probably in a subordinate relation. Te fortifcation system of the settlement does not represent a serious obstacle in itself, as an organized military force could overcome it easily, but it ensured, no doubt, a feeling of comfort to the inhabitants that it could protect against bands of brigands and occasional raids mounted by rival factions; furthermore, this construction, that certainly required the work of the entire community, implies the presence of a noble clan at the leadership of the settlement. Te analysis of the visibility area (Fig. 4) indicates that the fortifcation controlled almost the entire depression of Vărădia, but did not grant direct visibility towards the fortifcation in Săvârşin. It supervised both the course of the Mureş and the pertaining commercial road, and the surrounding agricultural areas. It seems very probable that the settlement in Vărădia was “subordinated” to the one in Săvârşin, defending the area from the west. Located seven kilometers apart in a straight line, the two settlements, partially contemporary76, controlled this sector of the Lower Mureş and, implicitly, the access way to the core of the Dacian Kingdom. Te future publication of monograph works detailing the two sites will certainly provide more analysis possibilities of the Dacians’ life in this area and of the two fortifcations located so close to each other and that, no doubt, shared a common historical destiny.

70 Previously unpublished, information kindly provided Dr. Viorica Crişan (MNIT Cluj-Napoca), to whom I hereby thank. 71 For the defnition of their characteristics, see Crişan 1966, 168–169. 72 One must also take into account the specifcally regional nuances, starting from the truism that it is not mandatory for a certain type of vessel to have everywhere the same chronology; outside the large settlements and regional centers, in the smaller settlements, it is to be expected that the “innovations” reached later. 73 Glodariu 1981b, 156. 74 Matei 2011, 65 (the author calls them bowls). 75 Kind information provided by Dr. Valeriu Sîrbu (Museum of Brăila), to whom I hereby thank. 76 In the sense that habitation in Săvârşin started much earlier. Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 97

Fig. 4. Vărădia de Mureş Depression.Calculation of the visibility area (10 km) of the Dacian fortif cation in Vărădia –“Dealul Cetate.” Legend: 1. Vărădia de Mureş – “DealulCetate;” 2. Săvârşin – “Dealul Cetăţuie;” 3. Săvârşin –“DealulCruntava” (uncertain)77; 4. Săvârşin – civilian settlement; 5.Vărădia de Mureş – civilian settlement; 6. Juliţa – Madosza Solomon’s garden78; 7. Bulci – “La Cetate”79; A. Hoard in Temeşeşti80; B. Hoard in Căprioara81; C. Hoard in Toc82; D. Stray f nd in Valea Mare83.

Appendix: Catalog I will present, in order to illustrate, a small part of the Dacian pottery material discovered on the on the spot of “Cetate.” In order to avoid possible unclarities, I need to make certain brief mentions on the system employed in the description and cataloguing of the pottery. T e f rst f eld, labeled indicative, includes the inventory number of the object (e.g. VM 181_1974) and a current number that I provided while processing it, that can be followed by letters in case there are several graphically reconstructed fragments (e.g. 1a,b). T us, each processed fragment benef ts from a unique code of identif cation, useful both in transforming the catalogue into databases and in case of future completions. T e subsequent f eld, labeled type, signals the type of vessel and the characteristics of its rim, bottom, cup, handle, on a case-to-case basis. In the f eld technique I mention the modeling method (by hand or on the potters’wheel), the type of f ring, treatment of the surfaces (when such applies), the presence of secondary f ring and traces of smoking84, and if one can identify traces of special tools (combs and brushes used in the decoration of pottery etc.)85 T e f eld dedicated to the dimensions contains the specif c measurements and is followed by the f led referring to the aspect of the fabric. T e latter includes discussions of several factors such as color86, coarseness87, hardness88, nature of the

77 Pădurean, Berzovan 2011, 34, footnote 15. 78 See supra, footnote 33. 79 RAJ Arad 1999, 47. 80 RAJ Arad 1999, 127. 81 RAJ Arad 1999, 49. 82 RAJ Arad 1999, 127. 83 Unpublished, republican Roman denarius in the collection of a local inhabitant; kind information provided by E. Pădurean, to whom I hereby thank. 84 Important in determining the functionality of the vessel (and not only). 85 An extremely useful thing when, on the basis of more ample writings, the issue of household production will be approached and that of workshop production, respectively. 86 As, by its very nature, this f eld involves a high degree of subjectivity, I chose, as much of possible, to employ ample determinations, without too many variants and nuances. I f nd the use of the Münsellchart irrelevant. 87 T e tactile aspect of the fabric. In the description of this factor I use f ve degrees of coarseness: very accented (“coarse”); accented (“rough”); average (“straightened”), low (“smoothed”), very low (polished pottery, with “soap-like” outlook). T e estimation was made on the best preserved surface of the vessel or fragment under analysis. See Teodor 2001, 46. 88 Also described according to f ve degrees, see Teodor 2001, 46. 98 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan inclusions89 and their proportion. Te sixth feld is dedicated to the ornaments, while in the fnal feld I mention – when able to fnd out – the origin of the vessel, i.e. the place where it was found.

Jar-like vessels 1. (Pl. 1/1). Indicative: VM 181_1974_1; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, fattened end; Technique: modeled by hand; mixed fring; wooden spatula and comb; Dimensions: Ømouth: 14 cm; Øneck: 13 cm; Ømedian: 15 cm; Hupper: 12,5 cm; Grwall: 0.3–0.4 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color, with brick-red nuances on the inside; accented coarseness; accented hardness; sand in small quantity, occasional pebbles; Ornaments: the fragment displays two „pills”, applied on the neck on the best preserved of the two one can note four alveoli, impressed by fnger; the body of the vessel was decorated with several rows of slightly arched striations, placed vertically, made with a comb in the soft fabric that already started to harden. In the area of maximum diameter it preserves an oval-shaped knob, not very prominent, with three alveoli. Origin: square H, -0.90 m. 2. (Pl. 1/2). Indicative: VM 181/1974_5; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, fattened end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; spatula and blunt-ended instrument; secondary fring and smoked traces on both sides; Dimensions:

Ømouth: 14 cm; Øneck: 12,5 cm; Ømedian: 15 cm; Hupper: 9.3 cm; Grwall: 0.5 cm; Aspect: dark brown-blackish in color; accented coarseness; accented hardness; sand in average quantity; Ornaments: the fragment displays a complex ornament consisting of a series of parallel arches and sharp angles, made with a blunt instrument in the still soft fabric of the vessel; Origin: passim. 3. (Pl. 1/3). Indicative: VM 270/1973_20; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; smoked on the inside; Dimensions: Ømouth: 17 cm; Øneck: 12.3 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: dark brown-blackish in color; accented coarseness; accented hardness; sand in low quantity, occasional pebbles; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: S4, square 13. 4. (Pl. 1/4). Indicative: VM 265/1973_1a,b,c; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; secondary fring and smoked, especially on the inside; spatula, brush; smoothed on the inside;

Dimensions: Ømouth: 20.5 cm; Øneck: 19.5 cm; Ømedian: 23.5 cm; Hupper: 11 cm; Grwall: 0.7 cm; Aspect: dark brown- blackish in color; average coarseness; without visible inclusions; Ornaments: the fragment displays a series of striations, at various angles, made with a brush, and a vertical girdle of alveoli, carefully rendered; Origin: square E, -0.60 m. 5. (Pl. 1/5). Indicative: VM 273/1972_3; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, fattened end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; blunt-ended instrument; Dimensions: Ømouth: 18 cm; Øneck: 17 cm; Ømedian: 20.5 cm; Hupper: 11.5 cm; Grwall: 0.5 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; occasional pebbles; Ornaments: the fragment displays a circular „pill” on which the potter attempted to create an alveolus by digital imprint; circle segments, carelessly rendered with a blunt instrument, framing the mentioned „pill”; Origin: square B, -0.85 m. 6. (Pl. 1/6). Indicative: VM 195/1973_10; Type: jar; fat bottom, weakly profled sole; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; smoked on both sides; comb; Dimensions: Øbottom: 13 cm; Grwall: 1 cm; Aspect: blackish fabric; accented coarseness; accented hardness; sand in small quantity, occasional traces of chamotte; Ornaments: the fragment displays a series of rows of parallel incisions, almost vertical, made with a comb, in the fabric while it started to harden; Origin: square H. 7. (Pl. 1/7). Indicative: VM 16095/1972; Type: jar; fared rim, fattened end; fat bottom, no sole; Technique: modeled by hand; mixed fring; slightly smoked; blunt-ended instrument; Dimensions: Ømouth: 16 cm; Øneck: 14 cm; Ømedian:

17 cm; Øbottom: 11 cm; Htotal: 16 cm; Hupper: 7 cm; Hlower: 9 cm; Grwall: 0.7 cm; Aspect: yellowish in color; accented coarseness; accented hardness; sand in average quantity; Ornaments: the vessel displays four ovoid knobs, fattened, placed at approximately equal distance from each other, placed on the maximum diameter. In the areas delimited by the four knobs one fnds two wide incisions, vaguely parallel, with an almost semicircular contour, made rather carelessly; Origin: square B, – 0.35 m. 8. (Pl. 2/1).

89 I avoid using the term “temper material” since the distinction between the impurities of the clay and the actual “temper materials” cannot be made in the absence of certain analyses (Teodor 2001, 46–47). Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 99

Indicative: VM 143/1973_1a,b,c; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; traces of secondary fring and smoked on both sides; blunt-ended instrument; Dimensions:

Ømouth: 19 cm; Øneck: 18 cm; Ømedian: 23 cm; Hupper: 13 cm; Grwall: 0.7 cm; Aspect: blackish in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; large-grain sand in average quantity and occasional pebbles; Ornaments: the fragment displays a round, fattened knob and a strap consisting of three wavy lines, carelessly rendered with a blunt instrument in the soft fabric of the vessel. Origin: square D, -0.60 m. 9. (Pl. 2/2). Indicative: VM 143/1973_2a,b; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; intense secondary fring and strongly smoked, especially on the inside; Dimensions: Ømouth:

19.5 cm; Øneck: 18 cm; Ømedian: 23 cm; Hupper: 13 cm; Grwall: 0.7 cm; Aspect: dark-brown – blackish in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; large-grain sand in average quantity and occasional pebbles; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: passim. 10. (Pl. 2/3). Indicative: VM 129/1973_7a,b,c; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; oxidizing fring; smoked on the inside; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Ømouth: 20.5 cm; Øneck: 20 cm; Ømedian: 25 cm;

Hupper: 12 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: brick-red in color; low coarseness; accented hardness; no visible inclusions; on the outside it shows traces of a hot liquid having trickled; Ornaments: the fragment displays an arched girdle of alveoli and a „pill”, probably part of a more complex ornament; Origin: square G, -0.75 m. 11. (Pl. 2/4). Indicative: VM 270/1973_18; Type: jar; slightly fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; traces of secondary fring and smoked on both sides; Dimensions: Ømouth: 14 cm; Øneck: 12.5 cm;

Ømedian: 16.7 cm; Hupper: 10 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: dark-brown – blackish in color; very accented coarseness; accented hardness; large-grain sand and pebbles in large quantity, traces of chaf; Ornaments: the fragment displays a horizontal row of alveoli made through digital imprint; Origin: S4, square 15, –2.40 m. 12. (Pl. 2/5). Indicative: VM 265/1973_8; Type: jar; fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; blunt-ended instrument, spatula; Dimensions: Grwall: 0.7 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; mica in average quantity; Ornaments: the fragment displays oblique lines, almost parallel, made with a blunt-ended instrument; Origin: S4, square 2, –1.80 m. 13. (Pl. 2/6). Indicative: VM 265/1973_9; Type: jar; fared rim, rounded end; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; well smoked on both sides; Dimensions: Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: dark brown – blackish in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; mica in average quantity; Ornaments: the fragment displays a round, fattened knob; Origin: passim. 14. (Pl. 2/7). Indicative: VM 265/1973_10; Type: jar (?); straight rim, notched; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; smoked on the inside; Dimensions: Grwall: 0.6 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; mica in small quantity, organic inclusions (probably a four-like matter judging according to the small holes left in the fabric); Ornaments: the rim was ornamented with notches, made with one’s nail; Origin: passim. 15. (Pl. 2/9). Indicative: VM 273/1973_4; Type: jar; fared rim, fattened end; Technique: modeled by hand; mixed fring;

Dimensions: Ømouth: 18 cm; Øneck: 16.5 cm; Ømedian: 18 cm; Hupper: 10 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; lacking visible inclusions; Ornaments: the fragment displays an ovoid knob with two alveoli; Origin: square B, -0.85 m.

Various categories of vessels 16. (Pl. 2/8). Indicative: VM 16093/1974; Type: smoker, strainer (?);Technique: modeled by hand; oxidizing fring; the orifces were made in the damp fabric with a blunt-ended instrument, from the inside out, a fact that triggered in numerous cases the formation of small clay „rings” around the perforations, on the outside. Te orifces are not placed symmetrically; Dimensions: Ømouth: 14 cm; Øbottom: 8 cm; Htotal: 12 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: brick-red color; accented coarseness; accented hardness; lacking visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: S I, square 11, -0.60m. 17. (Pl. 3/1). Indicative: VM 245/1972_12; Type: tureen; fared rim, pointy end; miniature, lowered handle, prolonged profle; Technique: modeled by hand; oxidizing fring; Dimensions: Ømouth: 14 cm; Grwall: 0.4 cm; Aspect: 100 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan brick-red color; average coarseness; accented hardness; sand in small quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: passim. 18. (Pl. 3/2; Pl. 8/2). Indicative: VM 177/1974_9a,b; Type: pseudokantharos; straight rim, fattened end; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; polished on both sides; blunt-ended instrument; Dimensions: Ømouth: 24 cm; Øneck: 22.5 cm;

Ømedian: 24 cm; Hupper: 7 cm; Grwall: 0.6 cm; Aspect: blackish in color; very low coarseness; accented hardness; sand in very small quantity; Ornaments: the fragments display a poorly profled horizontal furrow, pulled from the fabric of the vessel during turning; as for the incised ornaments, there are two horizontal, parallel lines placed under the rim, made with a sharp instrument, and a horizontal line made with a blunt instrument, placed on the body of the vessel, that frames an area reserved for ornaments that cannot be easily reconstructed (circles? wavy line?) due to the fragmentary state; Origin: square H, -0.50 m. 19. (Pl. 3/3; Pl. 8/3). Indicative: VM 131/1973_6; Type: cup, fragment; torsaded handle; Technique: hand modeled; reducing fring; Dimensions: Grmaximum: 2 cm; Aspect: dark grey – blackish in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; sporadic fragments of chamotte; Ornaments: through the fabrication manner, it displays not only func- tional, but also ornamental values; Origin: square H, -0.40 m. 20. (Pl. 3/4). Indicative: VM 270/1973_6a,b; Type: situla, imitation; in-turned rim, rounded end, thickened; Technique: hand modeled; reducing fring; wooden spatula, brush; smoked on both sides; Dimensions: Ømouth: 30 cm; Øneck:

33.5 cm; Grwall: 1 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color; accented coarseness; accented hardness; large-grain sand and pebbles in signifcant quantity; Ornaments: a horizontal furrow, similar to a step, was pulled from the fabric under the neck; a horizontal strap was delineated with a blunt instrument underneath, followed by a new furrow, more poorly profled, that frames an area decorated with horizontal striations incised in the fabric as it hardened, with an instrument looking like a comb with blunt tips; Origin: square F, -0.55 m. 21. (Pl. 3/5). Indicative: VM 1973/cm_18; Type: tureen; slightly fared rim, rounded end; Technique: hand modeled; oxidizing fring; Dimensions: Ømouth: 30 cm; Grwall: 0.6 cm; Aspect: yellowish in color; average coarseness; average hardness; without visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: passim. 22. (Pl. 3/6). Indicative: VM 153/1973_4; Type: pot; slightly fared rim, rounded end, thickened; Technique: hand modeled; reducing fring; wooden spatula; secondary fring and smoking on the rim; Dimensions: Ømouth: 27 cm; Grwall: 2 cm; Aspect: dark brown – blackish in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; sand in average quantity, pebbles in small quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square F, -0.35 m. 23. (Pl. 3/7). Indicative: VM 218/1973_1; Type: bowl; in-turned rim, fattened end; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Ømouth: 24.2 cm; Grwall: 2 cm; Aspect: grey in color; low coarseness; accented hardness; mica in small quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: S4, square 4, –1.70 m. 24. (Pl. 3/8). Indicative: VM 180/1973_6; Type: fragment; bottom with umbo; Technique: hand modeled; mixed fring; dark brown – blackish slip, strongly corroded; Dimensions: Øbottom: 10.2 cm; Grwall: 1 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color; low coarseness; accented hardness; without visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square E, -0.20 m. 25. (Pl. 3/9). Indicative: VM 177/1974_5a,b; Type: cup, wall; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; wooden spatula; polished on the outside; Dimensions: Grwall: 1 cm; Aspect: reddish brown fabric (on the inside), blackish (outside); low coarseness; accented hardness; mica in small quantity; Ornaments: the fragment displays two vertical, parallel profles, rather carelessly pulled from the fabric while turning. Between these two furrows there is a horizontal strap, 1.5 cm in width, not polished inside with polished wavy line inside; Origin: square H, -0.40 m. 26. (Pl. 3/10). Indicative: VM 181/1974_3; Type: bowl; fared rim, rounded end; cup with profled shoulder; Technique: hand modeled; mixed fring; Dimensions: Ømouth: 21 cm; Grwall: 0.7 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color (inside), reddish brown (outside); very accented coarseness; accented hardness; large-grain sand and pebbles in large quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.90 m.

Storage vessels 27. (Pl. 4/1; Pl. 9/6). Indicative: VM 194_1974_17;Type: pythos; strongly fared rim, „in two steps”; Technique: wheel-thrown; oxidizing fring; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Ømouth: 25 cm; Grwall: 1–1.2 cm; Aspect: orange in color; average Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 101 coarseness; accented hardness; mica in average quantity; Ornaments: on the groove between the two „steps” of the rim it displays a wavy line, incised in the soft fabric with a blunt-ended instrument, while the vessel was turning; Origin: square H, -0.30 m. 28. (Pl. 4/2; Pl. 9/2). Indicative: VM 194_1974_18;Type: pythos; ring bottom; Technique: wheel-thrown; oxidizing fring; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Øbottom: 25 cm; Grwall: 1–1.2 cm; Aspect: orange in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; mica in large quantity, sand in small quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.30 m. 29. (Pl. 4/3; Pl. 9/1). Indicative: VM 194_1974_20;Type: pythos, wall; Technique: wheel-thrown; oxidizing fring; secondary fring on both sides; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Grwall: 1.3 cm; Aspect: brick-red in color; low coarseness; accented hardness; mica in average quantity, pebbles in small quantity; Ornaments: it displays two horizontal „steps,” pulled from the fabric while the vessel was turning; Origin: square H, -0.50 m. 30. (Pl. 4/4; Pl. 9/7). Indicative: VM 260_1973_21;Type: pythos, wall; Technique: wheel-thrown; oxidizing fring; wooden spatula;

Dimensions: Grwall: 1–1.5 cm;Aspect: brick-red in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; mica and pebbles in small quantity; Ornaments: it displays one furrow, pulled from the fabric probably while the vessel was being smoothed, careless aspect; Origin: square H, -0.30 m. 31. (Pl. 4/5; Pl 9/4). Indicative: VM 268_1973_2; Type: dolium; in-turned rim, fattened end; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Ømouth: 30 cm; Grwall: 1–1.5 cm;Aspect: dark grey in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; sand, pebbles, ferrous concretions in average quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: passim. 32. (Pl. 4/6; Pl. 9/3). Indicative: VM 271_1971_6; Type: pythos, fragment; Technique: wheel-thrown; oxidizing fring; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Grwall: 1–1.5 cm; Aspect: brick-red in color (grey core); low coarseness; accented hardness; mica and pebbles in small quantity; Ornaments: it displays two horizontal line performed while the vessel was turning with a blunt instrument, that frames a wavy lines created in the same way; Origin: passim. 33.(Pl. 4/7; Pl. 9/5). Indicative: VM 268_1973_1; Type: dolium; in-turned rim, T-shaped; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Ømouth: 50 cm; Grwall: 1.8–2.3 cm; Aspect: grey in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; sand in average quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: passim.

Fruit-bowls 34. (Pl. 5/1). Indicative: VM 260/1973_1; Type: fruit-bowl; strongly fared rim, rounded end; cup with poorly profled shoulder; Technique: modeled by hand; oxidizing fring; polished on both sides; Dimensions: Ømouth: 38.5 cm;

Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: dark brown – brick-red in color; very low coarseness; accented hardness; sand in small quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, – 0.30 m. 35. (Pl. 5/2). Indicative: VM 260/1973_2; Type: fruit-bowl; slightly down-turned rim, with fattened end; cup with poorly profled shoulder; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; black slip, polished on both sides; Dimensions:

Ømouth: 35 cm; Grwall: 1 cm; Aspect: black in color; very low coarseness; very accented hardness; lacking visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: S4, square 5, –2.10 m. 36. (Pl. 5/3). Indicative: VM 260/1973_3; Type: fruit-bowl; fared rim, rounded end; cup with very well profled shoulder;

Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; polished on both sides, better on the inside; Dimensions: Ømouth:

30.5 cm; Grwall: 0.5 cm; Aspect: reddish-brown in color (inside), blackish (outside); very low coarseness; accented hardness; lacking visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H. 37. (Pl. 5/4). Indicative: VM 260/1973_4; Type: fruit-bowl; down-turned rim, rounded end; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; black slip, polished on both sides; Dimensions: Ømouth: 44 cm; Grwall: 1 cm; Aspect: black in color; very low coarseness; very accented hardness; sporadic pebbles; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.30 m. 38. (Pl. 5/5). Indicative: VM 260/1973_5; Type: fruit-bowl; strongly fared rim, rounded end; cup with well-profled shoulder; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; traces from a spatula; Dimensions: Ømouth: 38 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: grey in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; without visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square E, – 1.25 m. 102 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

39. (Pl. 5/6). Indicative: VM 194/1974_1; Type: fruit-bowl; strongly fared rim, rounded end; cup with well-profled shoulder; Technique: modeled by hand; mixed fring; slight secondary fre traces on the outside; Dimensions:

Ømouth: 42 cm; Grwall: 1 cm; Aspect: yellowish brown in color; average coarseness; accented hardness; sporadic pebbles and ferrous concretions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.30 m. 40. (Pl. 5/7). Indicative: VM 194/1974_2; Type: fruit-bowl; fared rim, rounded end; cup with poorly-profled shoulder;

Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; well polished on both sides; Dimensions: Ømouth: 22.5 cm;

Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: black in color; very low coarseness; very accented hardness; without visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.90 m. 41. (Pl. 5/8). Indicative: VM 194/1974_3; Type: fruit-bowl; slightly down-turned rim, rounded end; Technique: wheel- thrown; reducing fring; dark brown – blackish slip on both sides; Dimensions: Ømouth: 37 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: dark brown – blackish in color; low coarseness; accented hardness; sand in small quantity, sporadic pebbles; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.50 m. 42. (Pl. 6/4). Indicative: VM 129/1973_16; Type: fruit-bowl; tronconic foot; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; black slip, well polished on the outside; Dimensions: Øbottom: 16.5 cm; Grwall: 0.7 cm; Aspect: black in color (outside), dark yellowish brown (inside); very low coarseness; accented hardness; sand in average quantity, sporadic pebbles; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.30 m. 43. (Pl. 6/5) Indicative: VM 129/1973_17; Type: fruit-bowl; tronconic foot; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; polished on the outside; Dimensions: Øbottom: 14.5 cm; Grwall: 0.6 cm; Aspect: dark-yellowish brown in color; very low coarseness; accented hardness; lacking visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square H, -0.30 m. 44. (Pl. 6/6; Pl. 7/4). Indicative: VM 276/1972_2; Type: fruit-bowl; spindle-shaped foot; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; polished on the outside; displays a perforation on the bottom of the cup; Dimensions: Øcupbottom: 8 cm;

Grwall: 0.9 cm; Øperforation: 0.9 cm – 1.3 cm; Aspect: blackish in color; very low coarseness; accented hardness; sand in average quantity and sporadic pebbles; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square B, -0.60 m. 45. (Pl. 6/7; Pl. 7/7). Indicative: VM 153/1973_8,a,b; Type: fruit-bowl; spindle-shaped foot; Technique: wheel-thrown; reducing fring; black slip, polished on both sides; Dimensions: Øbottom: 10.5 cm; Grwall: 0.5 cm; Aspect: black in color; very low coarseness; accented hardness; graphite in low quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square F, -0.35 m.

Dacian cups (“căţui”) 46. (Pl. 6/1). Indicative: VM 142/1973_4; Type: Dacian cup; fat bottom; low handle, ovoid profle; Technique: modeled by hand; oxidizing fring; Dimensions: Øbottom: 5 cm; Grwall: 0.5 cm; Aspect: brick-red in color; accented coarseness; accented hardness; sand in average quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square D, -0.40 m. 47. (Pl. 6/2). Indicative: VM 16094/1974; Type: handless Dacian cup; fared rim, rounded end; fat bottom; Technique: modeled by hand; reducing fring; secondary fred and smoked on the inside; Dimensions: Ømouth: 12 cm; Øbottom:

7 cm; Htotal: 4.5 cm; Grwall: 0.6 cm; Aspect: dark brown in color; accented coarseness; accented hardness; sand and pebbles in average quantity; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square B, – 1.26 m. 48. (Pl. 6/3). Indicative: VM 212/1972_8; Type: Dacian cup; fared rim, fattened end; Technique: modeled by hand; oxidizing fring; slightly smoothed; wooden spatula; Dimensions: Øbottom: 25.5 cm; Grwall: 0.8 cm; Aspect: orange in color (inside), reddish (outside); average coarseness; accented hardness; without visible inclusions; Ornaments: undecorated; Origin: square B, –1.10 m.

Alexandru Berzovan “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iași Iaşi, ROU [email protected] Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 103

BIBLIOGRAPHY Andriţoiu, Rustoiu 1997 I. Andriţoiu, A. Rustoiu, Sighişoara – Wietenberg. Descoperirile preistorice şi aşezarea dacică. Bucureşti 1997. Antonescu 1984 D. Antonescu, Introducere în arhitectura dacilor. Bucureşti 1984. Babeş 1993 M. Babeş, Die Poieneşti – Lukaševka-Kultur. Bonn 1993. Barbu 1996 M. Barbu, Fortifcaţii dacice pe valea Mureşului Inferior. Ziridava XIX–XX, 1996, 45–57. Barbu, Zdroba 1977 M. Barbu, M. Zdroba, Aşezarea dacică de la Vărădia de Mureş. Ziridava X, 1977, 21–40. Barbu, Hurezan 1982 M. Barbu, P. Hurezan, Cercetările arheologice de la Săvârşin. Ziridava XIV, 1982, 49–67. Bichir 1984 Gh. Bichir, Geto-dacii din Muntenia în epoca romană. Bucureşti 1984. Berzovan 2013 A. Berzovan, Un istoric al cercetării celei de-a doua epoci a ferului pe teritoriul arădean. ActaCentriLucusiensis, nr. IA, 2013, 73–89. Boroneanţ 1978 V. Boroneanţ, Consideraţii preliminare asupra cercetărilor de la Cladova (comuna Păuliş, jud. Arad). Ziridava X, 1978, 139–158. Costea 2006 Fl. Costea, Augustin – Tipia Ormenişului. Comuna Augustin, judeţul Braşov. Monografe arheologică (I). Brașov 2006. Crişan 1969 I. H. Crişan, Ceramica daco-getică. Cu specială privire la Transilvania. Bucureşti 1969. Crişan 1978 I. H. Crişan, Ziridava. Arad 1978. Dumitraşcu 1970 S. Dumitraşcu, Cetăţuia dacică de la Clit. Lucrări Ştiinţifce IV, B, Oradea, 1970, 142–160. Dumitraşcu, S. Dumitraşcu, L. Mărghitan, Aşezări şi fortifcaţii dacice din vestul şi nord-vestul Mărghitan 1971 României din sec. III î.e.n.- II e.n. Sargetia VIII, 1971, 45–55. Dumitraşcu, S. Dumitraşcu, I. Ordentlich, Săpăturile arheologice de la Berindia. Crisia III, 1973, Ordentlich 1973 47–95. Giuşcă, Bleahu 1966 D. Giuşcă, M. Bleahu, Harta geologică a Republicii Socialiste România. Arad. 1: 200.000. Bucureşti 1966. Glodariu 1974 I. Glodariu, Relaţii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistică şi romană. Cluj-Napoca 1974. Glodariu 1981a I. Glodariu, Aşezări dacice şi daco-romane la Slimnic. Bucureşti 1981. Glodariu 1981b I. Glodariu, Contribuţii la cronologia ceramicii dacice în epoca Latene târzie. In: H. Daicoviciu (Ed.), Studii dacice. Cluj-Napoca 1981, 146–165. Glodariu 1983 I. Glodariu, Arhitectura dacilor. Cluj-Napoca 1983. Glodariu 1995 I. Glodariu, Vase de provizii de inspiraţie elenistică. Arheologia Moldovei XVIII, 1995, 45–50. Glodariu, Moga 1989 I. Glodariu, V. Moga, Cetatea dacică de la Căpâlna. Bucureşti 1989. Matei 2011 S. Matei, Ceramica geto-dacică din nord-estul Munteniei (sec. II a.Chr. – sec.I p.Chr.). Bucureşti 2011 (PhD thesis) (mss). Márki 1892 S. Márki, Arad vármegye és Arad szabad király város története (I). Arad 1892. Mărghitan 1970 L. Mărghitan, Vestigii dacice pe Mureşul Mijlociu. Sargeţia VII, 1970, 11–19. Mărghitan 2008 L. Mărghitan, Arta argintului la geto-daci. Repertoriu. Ziridava XXV, 2. Arad 2008. Medeleţ 1994 Fl. Medeleţ, Contribuţii la repertoriul numismatic al Banatului, Epoca Latène. Secolul IV î.Chr.–106. AnB S.N. III, 1994, 239–308. Mitrea 1945 B. Mitrea, Penetrazione commerciale e circolazione monetaria nella Dacia prima della conquista. EphNap X, 1945, 32–57. Pădurean 1990 E. Pădurean, Noi descoperiri arheologice în aşezarea fortifcată de la Păuliş – Dealul Bătrân, jud. Arad. Traco-Dacica IX, 1990, 157–192. Pădurean, Berzovan 2011 E. Pădurean, A. Berzovan, Aşezareadacică de la Agrişu Mare, Pârâul Valea Mare. In: P. Hügel, F. Oarcea (Eds.), Istoricul Dan Demşea la a 70-a aniversare. Arad 2011, 31–45. Popa, Simina 2004 C. I. Popa, N. Simina, Cercetări arheologice la Lancrăm „Glod”. Alba Iulia 2004. Pop 1995–1996 H. Pop, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea modului de petrecere a timpului liber la dacii din nord- vestul României. In: S. Mitu, Fl. Gogâltan (Eds.), Viaţă privată, mentalităţi collective şi imaginar social în Transilvania. Oradea – Cluj-Napoca 1995–1996, 71–75. Pop 2006 H. Pop, Fortifcaţii dacice din vestul şi nord-vestul României. Cluj-Napoca 2006. Preda 1980 C. Preda, Descoperirea de la Murighiol (jud. Tulcea) şi unele aspecte ale circulaţiei mone- delor olbiene la Dunărea de Jos. Studii și Cercetări de Numismatică VII, 1980, 35–43. 104 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

Pupeză 2012 P. Pupeză, Veacul întunecat al Daciei. Cluj-Napoca 2012. RAJ Alba 1995 V. Moga, H. Ciugudean, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Alba. Alba-Iulia 1995. RAJ Arad 1999 M. Barbu, P. Hügel, G. P. Hurezan, E. D. Pădureanu, Repertoriul arheologic al Mureşului Inferior. Judeţul Arad. Timişoara 1999. Roska 1942 M. Roska, Erdély Régészeti Repertoriuma. I. Öskori (Tesaurus Antiquitatum Transsilvanicarum). Cluj 1942. Rustoiu, Popa 2000 A. Rustoiu, C. I. Popa, Câteva problem privind ceramic Latène cu graft în pastă din Dacia preromană. AMP XXIII/1, 2000, 253–270. Rustoiu, Egri 2011 A. Rustoiu, M. Egri, Celţii din Bazinul Carpatic. Între tradiţiile continentale şi fascinaţia Mediteranei. Un studio privind kantharoi-i danubieni. Cluj-Napoca 2011. Spânu 2012 D. Spânu, Tezaurele dacice. Creaţia în metale preţioase din Dacia preromană. Bucureşti 2012. Teodor 2001 E. S. Teodor, Ceramica de uz comun din Muntenia de la sfârşitul veacului al V-lea până la mijlocul veacului al VII-lea. Bucureşti 2001 (PhD thesis) (mss), http: //esteo.ro/TTW/ index_est.html Téglás 1887 G. Téglás, Az erdéli medencze őstörténelméhez 340 praehistoricus telep ismertetése. Értesítőaz Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület Orvos-Természettudományi Szakosz-tályából (OTE),12, 9 (1887), 1, 55–87. Toma 2007 C. Toma, Dacia de nord-vest însecolele II î.Hr – I d.Hr. Cluj-Napoca 2007, (PhD thesis) (mss). Trohani 1999 G. Trohani, Ceramica geto-dacă din secolele II a. Chr. – I p. Chr. din Câmpia Română. Bucureşti 1999 (PhD thesis), (mss). Vulpe 1953 R. Vulpe, Săpăturile de la Poienești din 1949. MCA I, 1953, 418–496. Watson 1979 P. Watson, Archaeological ethnography in Western Iran. University of Arizona 1979. Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 105

1 3

Plate 1. Jars (drawings). 106 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

1 4

2 5

7 3

Plate 2. Jars and smoker vessel (drawings). Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 107

2 3

6 8

Plate 3. Various categories of vessels (drawings). 108 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

3 4

Plate 4. Storage vessels (drawings). Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 109

Plate 5. Fruit bowls (drawings). 110 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

1 2

4 5

6 7

Plate 6. Dacian cups and fruit bowls (drawings). Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 111

1 5

6 3

Plate 7. Fruit bowls (photographs). 112 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

1 4

2 5

6 3

Plate 8. Various categories of vessels and fragments (photographs). Preliminary Considerations on the Dacian Habitation in Vărădia de Mureş “Dealul Cetate”, Arad County ◆ 113

1 6

Plate 9. Storage vessels (photographs). 114 ◆ Alexandru Berzovan

10 3

7 4 5 6

9 8

Plate 10. Various objects (photographs). Abbreviations

ActaArchHung Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest. ActaHist Acta Historica. Szeged. Acta Siculica Acta Siculica. Sfântu Gheorghe. Aluta Aluta. Revista Muzeului Național Secuiesc Sfântu Gheorghe. Alba Regia Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. Székesfehérvár. AMN Acta Musei Napocensis. Cluj-Napoca. AMP Acta Musei Porolissensis. Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă Zalău. Zalău. ATS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis. Sibiu. AISC Anuarul Institutului de studii clasice Cluj Napoca. Cluj-Napoca. AnB S.N. Analele Banatului – serie nouă. Timişoara. Apulum Apulum. Alba-Iulia. AÉ Archaeologiai Értesitõ. Budapest. Areopolisz Areopolisz. Történelmi- és társadalomtudományi tanulmányok Odorheiu Secuiesc / Székelyudvarhely. ArhMed Arheologia Medievală. Iași. ArchRozhl Archeologické Rozhledy. Praga. ArhVest Arheološki Vestnik. Ljubljana. Banatica Banatica. Muzeul Banatului Montan. Reșița. BHAUT Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisiensis. BAR International Series British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford. BAM Brukenthal Acta Musei. Sibiu. BMMK A Békés Megyei múzeumok közleményei, Békéscsába. CAH Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae. Budapest. Cerc. Arh. Cercetări Arheologice. Bucureşti. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. CIMRM Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae. CCA Cronica Cercetărilor arheologice din România. Bucureşti. Crisia Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor. Oradea. Dacia N.S. Dacia. Recherches et Découvertes Archéologiques en Roumanie, Bucureşti; seria nouă (N.S.): Dacia. Revue d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Ancienne. Bucureşti. DissArch Dissertationis Archaelogicae (Budapest). Dolg Dolgozatok. Szeged. EphNap Ephemeris Napocensis. Cluj-Napoca. EL Erdővidéki Lapok. Barót/Baraolt. EM Erdélyi Múzeum. Kolozsvár/Cluj-Napoca. Isis Isis. Erdélyi Magyar Restaurátor Füzetek. Cluj-Napoca / Kolozsvár. JbRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Ztentralmuseums Mainz. Mainz. Marisia Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie – Istorie – Etnografe. Târgu-Mureș. MCA Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice. București.

ZIRIDAVA, STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA, 28, p. 273–274 274 ◆ Abbreviations

MFMÉ StudArch A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Studia Archaeologica. Szeged. MFMÉ MonArch A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Monumenta Archeologica. Szeged. OpArch Opvscvla Archaeologica. Zagreb. OpHung Opuscula Hungarica. Budapest. Pontica Pontica, Constanţa. PZ Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Berlin. RMM-MIA Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor – seria Monumente Istorice și de Artă. București. Sargeția NS Sargeția NS. Deva. SlovArch Slovenská Archeológia. Nitra. Soproni Szemle Soproni Szemle kulturtörténeti folyóirat. Sopron. StudCom Studia Comitatensia. Tanulmányok Pest megye múzeumaiból. Szentendre. ŠtudZvesti Študijne Zvesti Arheologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akademie Vied. Nitra. Stud. şi Cerc. Num. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie. Bucureşti. SCIVA Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie). Bucureşti. StComSatuMare Studii şi Comunicări. Satu Mare. Traco-Dacica Traco-Dacica. Bucureşti. VMMK A Veszprém megyei Múzeumok Közleményei. Veszprém. VTT Veszprémi Történelmi Tár. Veszprém. Ziridava Ziridava, Complexul Muzeal Arad. Arad.